Sample Erie Essay(Krasik gave us the fact pattern)

Bold points are the essay outline, memorize this for exam

The primary issue in this case is whether or not the Reverie statute is substantive law and therefore must be applied. In Federal diversity cases, the court must apply the law of the state when it is determined to be substantive or relates to a substantial right. There is no federal common law.

The supreme court has developed a two-prong analysis to determine whether a state law should apply. The first prong is guided by the Rules Enabling Act which authorizes the Supreme Court to “prescribe general rules of practice and procedure” for the federal courts.

Is there a federal statute or FRCP on point. In this case, Federal Rule 8 (a) 3 states that a demand for judgment for relief may be set forth in an original pleading. Rule 9 (g) states that special damages must be specifically stated. These rules are on point in that they deal with the claim for damages, particularly special damages.

Are the rules are outside the authority of the REA. The REA states that a FRCP is valid if it (a), is rationally capable of being classified as procedural and (b) “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive existing right,” referring to rights which have nothing to do with the litigation process. 8(a)2 and 9(g) address methods of pleading which are clearly procedural and affect administration of litigation. Therefore, they are valid.

Is there a direct conflict with state law. To determine whether or not there is a conflict, we read the FRCP according to its plain meaning and look to the policies behind the state law and FRCP.

In this case, the plaintiff will argue that there is a direct conflict via 8(a)2 – that the rule addresses the same subject matter, a claim for relief, but allows different things, no required evidentiary showing, and that 8 a)2 occupies the field. The same thing would apply to 9(g), that it does not require a The defendant will argue that the rule and statute can be offered together, that the statute doesn’t say you can never require a showing, just later.

If there is no direct conflict, then we apply the second prong of the analysis, guided by the Rules of Decision Act

The rules of decision acts states that the laws of several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the united.......

The Supreme Court has developed tests to determine alternative definitions of substantive.

Does the state law create rights and duties or is it bound up with rights and duties: If a state law creates rights and duties it is substantive and must be applied. In this case, the evidentiary showing may be classified as a heightened duty, but only in an administration of litigation sense. If yes, then substantive.

Would the outcome of the case be different if state law were applied: If you apply state law to the issue and the outcome is different than if you apply federal law, the state law is substantive and must be applied. In this case, it is unclear if a heightened requirement for a claim for punitive damages would affect the outcome of the case, only the amount of damages.

Are there federal or state interests which are controlling? In absence of other considerations, compelling interests such as docket control and judicial economy may override the outcome-determination test. The federal court in this case is easing the burden on the plaintiff and increasing judicial economy.

Would the application of federal law encourage forum-shopping. Forum shopping occurs when the plaintiff is encouraged to file his claim in a court favorable to the issue. In this case, the plaintiff may be encouraged to forum-shop if by doing so his burden of an evidentiary showing is reduced in federal court. On the other hand, if the plaintiff has the requisite evidence, the forum will be irrelevant. If yes, then substantive

Does the application of federal laws lead to an inequitable administration of law? An inequitable administration occurs when litigation opportunities are limited when viewed prospectively. In this case, litigation opportunity is unlikely to be changed in that the plaintiff will not be barred from bringing suit, he will only face a more rigorous evidentiary burden.